Historians such as Detlef Peukert have long argued that the Weimar Republic stabilized in the mid 1920ies and thus its downfall under the Nazis was not inevitable. The following responses list some plausible signs of this stabilization. Please identify the wrong answer.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

To tackle the question, I’ll go option by option and assess its historical plausibility in the mid-1920s context.
Option A: 'With American help, Germany was able to renegotiate the reparation payments stemming from the Treaty of Versailles. The Dawes and the Young plan made these payments more manageable, though many Germans still saw them as unjustified.' This statement aligns with the historical narrative of stabilization: after the 1924 Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan, German reparation payments were restructured and eased, contributing to economic stabilization and improved international relations. It is a plausible sign of stabilization rather than a sign of ongoing crisis.
Option B: 'Germany began to recover economically due to American investment.' This is broadly accurate. The influx of American capital and the reparations arrangements helped revive German industry and employment in the mid- to late-1920s, which is consistent with the stabilization thesis.
Option C: 'Germany began to overcome its diplomatic isolation through the Treaty of Rapallo with the SU and the Locarno Pact with its western neighbors and Britain and Italy.' Both agreements are classic indicators cited for stabilization: Rapallo (1922) improved relations with the Soviet Union, and Locarno (1925) normalized relations with Western powers and secured the frontiers via the Rhineland pact. This option correctly reflects signs of improved diplomacy.
Option D: 'Germany could regain territory lost after the Treaty of Versailles from Poland, thus encouraging further border changes.' This statement is not supported by the historical record of stabilization in the mid-1920s. While Germany did pursue revisionist aims, there was no credible policy or outcome in this period where Germany regained Polish territory; Polish borders were a contentious and largely settled outcome of postwar diplomacy, and German gains there did not materialize as a policy-driven sign of stabilization. The idea of negotiating or achieving regaining Polish territory as a sign of stabilization runs counter to the actual trajectory of German-Polish relations and the stabilized status quo of borders.
In summary, options A, B, and C reflect well-documented stabilizing developments in Weimar Germany during the mid-1920s, whereas option D asserts a territorial outcome that did not occur and therefore is the incorrect choice in this question.

Historians such as Detlef Peukert have long argued that the Weimar Republic stabilized in the mid 1920ies and thus its downfall under the Nazis was not inevitable. The following responses list some plausible signs of this stabilization. Please identify the wrong answer.单项选择题

类似问题

Historians have long argued that the Great Depression was a nail in the coffin of the Weimar Republic. Which one of the statements below does not accurately describe the impact?

You own a bond that pays $64 in interest annually. The face value is $1,000 and the current market price is $1,021.61. The bond matures in 11 years. What is the yield to maturity?

Which of the following statements is CORRECT?

It will cost $9,600 to acquire an ice cream cart that is expected to produce cash inflows of $3,600 a year for three years. After the three years, the cart is expected to be worthless. What is the payback period?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单